The ERLC controversy of a month or so ago has thankfully died down. I do not wish to revisit that controversy except to say that I am thankful for an open letter that was released today by the Louisiana Baptist Convention’s Executive Board.

This letter was written because a motion was made at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the Louisiana Baptist Convention asking the LBC’s Executive Board to “study the recent actions of the SBC Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission with regard to issues of concern to Louisiana Baptists.” The messengers voted to refer the matter to the Louisiana Baptist Convention Executive Board.

It’s no secret that one of the places where Moore was receiving the most strident criticism was from some within the Louisiana Baptist Convention. It was the state paper in Louisiana that broke the news that Prestonwood would be escrowing CP funds until further notice. Prestonwood has since resumed CP giving.

The study is over and the LBC released an open letter addressing the situation. Below are some quotes from the letter.

The heart of the letter:

We want to commend Dr. Moore for plainly confessing his failings that had resulted in the serious breach of fellowship we were observing in our Southern Baptist family. Although the statement did not address all the various particular complaints people had lodged, we believe it has encouraged folks to look for positive, rather than punitive, ways to work with the ERLC going forward. We want to encourage Dr. Moore, as he deals with the many serious and complex issues that face our people in the moral and social concerns arena, to listen carefully and respectfully to Southern Baptists even as we listen to him. We hope that we will be able to forge consensus among Southern Baptists as we attempt to bear witness in cultural conflicts. We encourage the ERLC to tread carefully in those matters where our people have genuine differences of opinion.

Regarding Dr. Moore’s leadership in areas where Southern Baptists are in agreement:

We also want to thank Dr. Moore for his leadership and contribution on important matters such as the sanctity of human life, the biblical view of marriage and sexuality, and racial justice. These years have seen an ominous rise in malicious anti-Christian sentiment in our nation. Southern Baptists are most encouraged when they are confident their ERLC is vigorously representing their cherished spiritual convictions in the public square.

A pledge from the LBC Executive Board:

For our part, we pledge to pray for our Lord to make the ERLC “strong and courageous.” Neither will we leave it to our agency to fight the battles alone but will engage the task as the church of the Lord. Furthermore, we will encourage our people to be thoughtful in their judgments, forbearing in their disagreements, and generous in their continued financial support for all our convention work.

Again, I am thankful for this letter and trust that this issue has been put to rest.

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

About Adam Blosser

Adam Blosser is pastor of Goshen Baptist Church in Spotsylvania, VA. He is a graduate of Liberty University (B.A.) & Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (M.Div.). He is currently pursuing a D.Min. in Expository Preaching at SEBTS. Adam and his wife Ashley have three children. Adam is an avid fan of the Baltimore Orioles and passes the time in the baseball off-season by rooting for the Baltimore Ravens. Twitter

For a supposedly conciliatory letter, the barbs are thinly veiled: Apparently—according to the authors of the letter—the “failings” of Moore, and Moore alone, are responsible for “the serious breach of fellowship we were observing in our Southern Baptist family.” I, for one, interpret what happened very differently. But if this makes for peace and continued support of SBC-sponsored ministries, perhaps this is a good thing. I guess.

David R. I agree with everything you wrote except for the last sentence. Principle is more important. God will provide for His Kingdom work. I wish the SBC had let Jack Graham keep his money. It’s not worth silencing voices like Dr. Moore’s.

May 12, 2017 11:21 pm

JON ESTES

David,

I agree with your comment. I hate to see such a closure with the slight barbs.

May 15, 2017 6:35 am

Tarheel

Yeah, even more irony – Louisiana state convention responds to what they identify as acrimonious language by Moore with a somewhat veiled but acrimonious statement accompanied by continued vitriolic articles in their state Baptist paper toward Moore.

Yeah, that’s more than a little ironic – maybe Hankins and Co. (including the Louisiana Baptist “newspaper”) should demonstrate to everyone exactly how to tread carefully where genuine differences of opinion exist.

My first thought was both Ethics and Religious Liberty as neither are mentioned in the letter. Seems they want a silent ERLC unless polling indicates unaanimous support of any view, thought, conviction or action. Sounds like they want the ERLC to be as effective as a bull who has met Jackie Sherrill.

May 13, 2017 11:13 am

Roger

The crux of the ERLC controversy was that Dr. Moore effectively endorsed a particular candidate for president.

Dr. Moore apologized but as far as I can decode from what he said he never said anything tantamount to “I apologize for endorsing a particular candidate”.

Also, I don’t see anything in the letter from the Louisiana Baptist Convention Leadership which really engages the crux of the problem — namely the endorsement of a particular political candidate.

It is great that everyone has buried the hatchet, but I think it would be more meaningful if they both engaged the issue which was actually causing all the acrimony.

Dr. Moore should make a statement that removes any ambiguity. He should say, “under no circumstances will the ERLC endorse a particular political candidate for any office. We will of course continue to speak out on issues in the public square that intersect with Christianity”.

How can either side say that they have worked out a way forward when neither side has really identified what the problem was in the first place.

Take the following example scenario:

(a) My wife takes my ham radio equipment and throws it in the trash. (b) She then says, “sometimes I might be intemperate in my actions and I apologize”. (c) I then accept her apology by saying, “often people have a different outlook on the perceived value of amateur radio equipment”. See how superficial the supposed apologies are compared to the issue of a person tossing their spouse’s stuff in the trash.

Maybe a more genuine apology for the wife would be, “I over reacted in a fit of anger. I am going to sell my sewing machine and buy you replacement radio equipment”. To which the husband thinks, “We were both hotheads. When she brings home the replacement radio gear, then I’m going to take some money from my IRA [remember this is an INDIVIDUAL retirement account] and buy my wife a new sewing machine”.

See the difference. There is something more transactional about this type of apology than the ERLC / LBC Exec Board “wordsmithing” that doesn’t really say much.

Roger Simpson Oklahoma City

May 13, 2017 12:03 am

Tarheel

Ummm……Moore did not endorse a candidate for President….. others did and essentially they’re mad because Moore didn’t support the one they endorsed – and hurt thier feelings by saying they shouldn’t either.

So, Maybe Moore should, in your mind say, Moore should say something like “the ERLC Promises to take note of SBC big dogs endorsements and to never, under any circumstances whatsoever, speak against that republican candidate for president …”?

Roger, you think it’s more acceptable for men like Robert Jeffress to endorse Donald Trump than for Dr. Moore to criticize him? You think Moore’s criticism implies an endorsement of the other candidate?

I’m not even sure to this day which candidate it was Moore supposedly endorsed. From everything I’ve observed, it looks like the problem most people had with Moore (if they had a problem with him) was his failure to jump on the endorsement bandwagon.

The way I see it, the preponderance of Southern Baptists already knew they were not supporting Clinton. While Moore and the ERLC have continuously pointed out the moral problems associated with abortion, gay marriage, and various other issues tied to the Democratic platform and Clinton’s candicacy, Trump’s impending (and eventual) candicacy brought to the surface a number of other issues not so thoroughly commented on in other elections. Thus, in my opinion, Moore’s comments on these issues (some of them tied to Trump’s personal rhetorical style and lifestyle) took on a greater degree of relevance and interest for Southern Baptists, many of whom were looking for biblical counsel with regard to how they should respond to these issues. Seen from this perspective, the comparative amount of attention given by Moore and the ERLC during the election cycle to the respective candidacies of Trump and Clinton does not seem unwarrantedly disproportionate to me.

May 14, 2017 4:19 pm

Pastor Moose

I didn’t vote for Trump (for many of the reasons that Dr. Moore rightfully pointed out) nor Clinton (shouldn’t be necessary to say this).

Roger may be correct that the election was the crux. However, there were other issues that many of us took issue with Dr. Moore on. As far as I know, none of these have been addressed to the SBC churches or individuals.
IMO, Page/Graham were ‘wise’ to meet with Moore before news of Moore’s statements and positions reached the pews/seats of SBC churches. Else, this would have become an even greater firestorm. I don’t think most SBC’ers realize Moore’s salary is funded by us.

Few other related notes:
a) It doesn’t get mentioned enough that part of the appeal of Trump was that he was viewed as a true DC outsider. Like it or not, I can see where some conservatives viewed Trump as the best hope to reverse the Obama policies and actually accomplish something substantive. How many times have believers supported senators/reps only to see them get to DC and forget from whence they came?

b) W.r.t. the SBC, Dr. Graham is first & foremost a shepherd. If the flock entrusted to him has issues of conscience regarding support to the ERLC/Moore, then he has to address it. Since Dr. Moore’s statements were made publicly, there is no reason for a local church’s to be kept secret.

FTR, I am thankful that Dr. Graham acted as he did. Else, it is unlikely that those of us in non-mega churches who also had issues with the ERLC – our concerns would never have seen the light of day.

Provide information and counsel to denominational entities, churches, and individuals regarding appropriate responses to religious liberty concerns; represent Southern Baptists in communicating the positions of the Southern Baptist Convention on religious liberty issues to the public and to public officials.”

In light of this and the election, I think Dr. Moore was duty bound to issue a statement as to which candidate best promoted religious liberty. That’s his job. Did he do that? (serious question) Didn’t Trump even make religious freedom a point during his campaign?

Sounds good to me. I think even the “tread carefully” remark is appropriate?, as it doesn’t seek to dictate what he should or shouldn’t say, but rather encourages careful thought and sensitivity, something we all ought to do every time we speak.

Al Mohler, Denny Burke, Danny Akin all were critical of candidate Trump and not a peep was said.

Russ Moore did not merely criticize a candidate he criticized those who planned on voting for Donald Trump. He used the word “vote” but later said he meant supporters who defended Trump. Until you can show the Biblical standard for a Christian vote in a democratic election one should “tread lightly” on condemning others for the way they vote in an election.

This letter from Louisiana will not be received by those who are Moore loyalists but there are some of us who were genuinely offended by Russ Moore in this election who have not written nasty articles, we have not called for his job, we have not attacked his character but would love to tell him to be respectful to those who disagree with you.

Do you think denominational leaders should avoid saying anything that might be construed as being critical of those who vote for Democrats and/or candidates who support abortion, gay marriage, etc.?

May 13, 2017 10:48 am

Dean Stewart

David, I believe there is no Biblical standard for voting in a democratic election therefore our denominational leaders should reserve criticism for candidates and not voters.

I personally pastor many who are staunch democrats. Having served with them I know a little about their hearts; they don’t see themselves supporting homosexual, abortion candidates but see themselves supporting civil rights and education reform. A candidate is open to criticism but I believe we need to be understanding toward our brothers as to what may motivate them to vote a certain way. In this last election Russ Moore didn’t criticize Hillary voters but did Trump voters. I don’t think he should have criticized either group of voters.

I need to add that I didn’t always feel this way. I used to be critical of those who vote democrat but I am grateful those videos and tapes are hard to find. (No interweb back then) John went from being the son of thunder in his youth who wanted to call fire down on others to writing my little children in his old age. That process happens to most of us and I am grateful.

Dean, I sort of get your point. It is hard to pastor or exercise spiritual leadership of a group with a mixture of different opinions on political-social issues. Yet as spiritual leaders, neither are we to remain silent on issues the Bible and the implications of our biblical beliefs address. I am not sure how we best balance these two imperatives. It seems to me, no matter what we do, there is always going to be someone upset with us.

May 13, 2017 12:26 pm

Tarheel

As it relates to Russell Moore – I find it almost inconceivable that people expect a person who is literally tasked with speaking to and for our denomination regarding ethical issues to not speak out against rank-and-file and big-name Southern Baptist falling in line and defending a seriously ethically challenged Donald Trump …. many even arguing that he will be bringing God back to the White House and defending his disgusting “locker room talk”.

Dean, you seen unwilling to admit this, but Moore made clear in statements back in the primary season, that his critique was not directed at every reluctant Trump supporter, but at evangelical and conservative leaders who were demonstrating hypocrisy and violating their own stated values in supporting him, or said it in the context of the GOP primary when there were other and better choices available. The statements that are prosecuted against him as if they were made during the general election were almost uniformly made during the primaries. He made a pretty strong case in support of that thesis.

He could have made that more clear, and in the fog of war we often forgot it, but it simply isn’t accurate to imply that he was dishonest – saying one thing then later saying he was saying something else.

He DID clarify his meaning – just not enough.

May 14, 2017 10:20 pm

Dean Stewart

Dave, In my discussion with David Rogers I shared what Russ Moore said about voters to clarify my position- criticism of candidates is fine but criticism of voters I am not comfortable with.

I never said RM didn’t criticize supporters of Trump. However, he did criticize voters which is a fact that some have denied which is not merely inaccurate but a lie.

May 14, 2017 10:38 pm

Roger

I stated that to me it seemed that Dr. Moore EFFECTIVELY endorsed a particular candidate. More accurately, he “gave a negative endorsement” to a particular candidate.

Here are a few direct quotes from Dr. Moore’s scathing remarks regarding Donald Trump.
[Source New York Times Editorial Sept 17, 2015]

—————————–

“To back Mr. Trump, these voters [evangelicals and other social conservatives] must repudiate everything they believe”

“We should not demand to see the long-form certificate for Mr. Trump’s second birth. We should, though, ask about his personal character and fitness for office.”

“Still, the problem is not just Mr. Trump’s personal lack of a moral compass. He is, after all, a casino and real estate mogul who has built his career off gambling, a moral vice and an economic swindle that oppresses the poorest and most desperate. ”

“He’s [Trump] defended, up until very recent years, abortion, and speaks even now of the “good things” done by Planned Parenthood.”

“Jesus taught his disciples to “count the cost” of following him. We should know, he said, where we’re going and what we’re leaving behind. We should also count the cost of following Donald Trump. To do so would mean that we’ve decided to join the other side of the culture war, that image and celebrity and money and power and social Darwinist “winning” trump the conservation of moral principles and a just society.”

—————–

Personally, I agree 99% with Dr. Moore. But in the SBC, Dr. Moore is opening up a hornet’s nest by calling out Trump by name. That is because, as history has demonstrated, several high profile leaders in the SBC came out and supported Trump.

Polarization regarding Trump vs. Clinton was taking on a life of its own that seemed to be short-circuiting just about anything else in the SBC.

I was remiss in my first comment to omit the fact that certain high profile leaders in the SBC became Trump supporters. So we had the perfect storm because high profile leaders in the SBC were on opposite side of the fence relative to Trump.

I stand by my comment that neither the ERLC apology nor the LBC apology really addresses the crux of the problem. Namely, the futility of taking sides in a political contest in such an explicit manner that people are supporting or condemning a particular candidate BY NAME.

My takeaway: We had two deeply flawed candidates. Endorsing [or condemning] either of them was like walking into croc infested waters. We spent way too much time arguing about two candidates neither of which were suited for the office of the President of the United States.

One last comment. Don’t infer from anything I’ve said or not said that the idea of “escrowing” CP funds is a legitimate bargaining tool.

In the interest of complete disclosure I voted for Clinton. I admit that I made the wrong choice. I would have been even more wrong to go with Trump.

Roger OKC

In an alternative universe various SBC leaders could have said something like this, “In this election cycle we are faced with a difficult choice relative to the presidential vote. We don’t have the wisdom of Solomon

If I remember correctly, Moore (and Mohler, along with a few others) recommended considering the possibility of voting for someone beside either Trump or Clinton, without ever specifying whom that someone might be. Perhaps your real point here is whether or not a denominational leader should be permitted to oppose the two-party-stranglehold system.

Are ANY of the things Dr. Moore said in regards to President Trump false? Do any of them misrepresent him?

So we should avoid any critique of any political leader? Where was this admonition when Dr. Moore was critical of President Obama? Where was this admonition when the entire SBC approved a resolution about morality for political candidates in reference to Bill Clinton?

According to certain SBC leaders you can criticize only those with D after their names. That’s hypocritical in the extreme.

May 13, 2017 11:45 am

Roger

AbsonJourney:

Every single thing that Dr. Moore said was true.

But I don’t think a rational cost/benefit analysis will support the thesis that all the polarization regarding the election stemming from the polemic statements by SBC leaders had a net positive impact.

You ask me about “Bill Clinton?” I am sorry, I don’t know enough about whatever stand the SBC did or did not take relative to Clinton to be able to engage your question.

Also, I can’t engage your issue regarding certain SBC leaders only tolerating criticism of Democrats. If you have a problem with “certain SBC leaders” then take that up with them. I am NOT a SBC leader.

For me personally — regarding like / dislike of both of the presidential candidates if the scale is :

—> 0 extreme dislike up to 10 high praise <–

then I'd put both candidates at no higher than a 2.

I'm not carrying anyone's water in this argument. I just think is was an argument that had no winners while at the same time serving as a pretext for a lot of polarization across the leadership of the SBC. We should keep our eye on the ball preaching the Gospel, not pontificate about the vices / virtues of one or more presidential candidate.

Again, for the nth time, don't construe anything I have said as me retrospectively "taking sides" in this whole dust up.

I'm not putting my money "in escrow" over here. In fact I was glad to lend my support to the scholarships for the Pastors Conference. I'm not giving $ or withholding $ to make a statement about what some guy says or doesn't say at some SBC agency.

Roger, one important thing to note that really changes the dynamic of the Moore quote you used above is the date: early in the republican primary process. Those words take on a whole different meaning if you’re choosing between Trump/Walker/Cruz/Rubio than if you’re choosing between Trump/Clinton. Not jumping in other than that – the context makes a difference that Moore would say that how he did in that particular editorial. The quotes are often repeated as if he was talking about the general election.

May 13, 2017 4:34 pm

Roger

Brent:

Your point is well taken. At the time of Dr. Moore’s NYT editorial [September 2015] there was an open field in the Republican Primary.

For whatever reason, many rank and file people in the pews in SBC churches voted for Trump later on in the general election. By some polls that I saw around 80% of self-identified “evangelicals” [not necessarily members of SBC churches] voted for Trump in the general election. Also, some prominent SBC pastors came out for Trump during the general election campaign. They even actively campaigned for him and joined Trump “focus groups”.

In any case, the point remains that Dr. Moore was out of sync with a large swath of the SBC. In my personal opinion he was 100% correct to issue his prophetic warning when he did. It could be that history will vindicate Dr. Moore’s position eventually.

However, Dr. Moore was a key element in stirring up the hornets nest. Dr. Moore started a chain reaction which caused quite a lot of fur to fly.

So far, at least, it seems to me that all this acrimony in the SBC over Trump was not worth it.

Maybe things will look different in a year or two. We might be saying that Dr. Moore was a voice in the wilderness pointing out something which most of us ignored.

If Trump survives a four term then that’s one thing. If he doesn’t then that’s something else. I’m not a prophet or the son of a prophet, so can’t put odds on the possibility of each outcome.

We are only just over 100 days into the Trump administration. Things seem to be going sideways in the Trump administration so far. The wheels in the Trump administration are coming off the track as I type this.

Should we wait with baited breath for what new Tweets Trump will issue tomorrow? How many more Tweets are we away from a complete train wreck?

I wasn’t the first guy to see that Nixon’s presidency was on the verge of collapse. But at some point it became clear– even to me. I don’t have a complete context yet to look at relative to the current resident of the White House. But storm clouds seems to be circling over 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

In any case, I don’t see much benefit that would accrue to any pastor or leader by taking an overtly pro-Trump stance. If I was accountable to others in the flock I’d lay low relative to my political views. I’d try to stay “above the fray” — or at least “out of the fray”.

One outworking of this is that I’m not weighing-in on or “taking sides” on the ERLC / Prestonwood issue. For two reasons: [1] The fight is largely over and [2] the fight wasn’t doing much to advance the Gospel in our churches.

One last thing regarding Dr. Moore. Readers to SBC Voices will recall that I personally accepted Dr. Moore’s apology. But at the same time I called for the elimination of the ERLC as an entity. But I have rescinded my call for the ERLC to be folded into some other part of the SBC. I just don’t think the organizational shake up — somewhat akin to a subset of the re-org with the Radio and TV commission and the Brotherhood commission — is feasible to bring off right now.

I never felt that Russell Moore was endorsing a candidate. He was speaking on moral issues as he should. I am fairly certain that he did not vote for either Trump or Clinton but for an independent candidate if he voted at all.
I find it interesting that Moore was attacked by Jack Graham for criticizing those who were endorsing Trump with such adoration while not mentioning his many moral failures but they had no problem with fellow Trump advisor Robert Jeffress going on national TV and saying any conservative Christian who doesn’t vote for Trump is a coward and hypocrite. That goes beyond anything Moore said. The problem for Graham and these Louisiana folks is not that Moore criticized Baptists for their political endorsements. It is that he criticized them and bruised their egos.
The fact that Jeffress, Falwell and others were politicizing for Trump for so long and so enthusiastically proves the lie that the Johnson Amendment is a threat to free speech or religious liberty. President Trump’s recent executive order was much ado about nothing. Even the ACLU was so unimpressed they decided it wasn’t worth the effort to challenge in court because it did nothing.

The Johnson Amendment is a provision in the U.S. tax code that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Section 501(c)(3) organizations are the most common type of nonprofit organization in the United States, ranging from charitable foundations to universities and churches. The amendment is named for then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas.

Roger, it was part of the subject of Trump’s last executive order. With much fanfare it was signed his executive order in the Rose Garden with Jack Graham and other religious leaders looking on. It was portrayed as destroying the Johnson Amendment but it actually changed nothing and was nothing more than a photo opp for Graham and others. Trump was supposed to provide relief for those who have been fined heavily because they would not provide services for same sex marriages because it violated their religious beliefs, flower shops, bakers, etc. However, it was taken out at the last minute.